North Sea Stirling Discovery

I dived on a U Boat the other day (U13, a type IIB, 30m down off Lowestoft) and the prop is still in situ. There’s a length of chain running along the stern and a large piece of trawl net draped over the conning tower. The outer hull has started to collapse with some large gaping holes which weren’t present a year ago. That’s a considerably stronger structure than an aircraft. No salvage attempt*, unlike HMS Umpire off Blakeney which was ripped apart many years back for scrap.

I’m unconvinced that the protection is anything other than a ‘get-out’ for governments to not recover the numerous bodies and pieces of hardware and then trying to make it seem like it’s their compassion and respect. A few bones doesn’t stop wrecks from being wire-swept to level them if they’re a hazard to shipping.

It’s ********. Raise them if there’s a will and the finances, bury the dead if there is anything recovered and let people see history that will crumble into sweet FA otherwise with any remains being scattered, buried, smashed in the process.

*local conditions rather than the torpedo being armed and visible with the tube open as they were trying to get a shot at HMS Weston.

Basically, the authorities make it up as they go along?
Okay for the Hood, not okay for an aeroplane?

There was outcry over a group (not Woods Hole, who originally found it) recovering pieces of the Titanic. On one hand you can make the argument it is a grave, on the other given the rate of deterioration, if it wasn’t done now, soon there won’t be anything to recover.
I’ve read that the wrecks of the Prince of Wales and Repulse have been illegally salvaged (as you might expect in that part of the world) so some authorized recovery might be a good thing for a museum or a memorial.

And let’s face it, artifacts are important, whether it’s china or a bell from a ship or items from a mummy’s tomb.

Given the scarcity of Stirling artifacts, that makes this instance a bit of a different situation than if the aircraft in question was a common type.

Actually physically protect this Stirling? No-one of course. It would be pure chance if someone were prosecuted for deliberately disturbing it. It has no doubt been accidentally ravaged by numerous fishing nets over the decades.

Unlike the Jutland wrecks though this Stirling’s going to have low scrap value and that is what will probably save it from illegal salvage.

Curious, how did they get permission to raise the bell off the HMS Hood wreck?

I think, above all, we have to be pragmatic about these things; all sites are different, and being ‘respectful’ towards the dead will mean managing the sites in different ways.

The British government has neither the resources or the inclination to physically protect ‘protected’ sites and laws written for the law-abiding are, clearly, next to useless. Especially where there is a quick and easy profit to be made.

While HMS Hood, by virtue of her depth and location, is reasonably safe from illegal commercial salvage operations other similar warships are not; despite their historic significance and their status, and considering the relative ‘ease’ of protecting them, several of the Royal Navy warships lost at the Battle of Jutland have been looted, for the want of a better word, in highly destructive salvage operations. In one case a complete bronze propeller was salvaged from one of the lost battle-cruisers (and subsequently melted-down for scrap)…

…surely a better way to ‘protect’ this wreck would have been to remove the propeller to a museum?

While it would be nice to ‘protect’ this Stirling (if it turns out to be one) who is actually going to police this protected status, or prosecute those that break the law?

Had an email from the RAFM simply confirming the name of the woman who makes the decision as to whether it stays in situ or not. So nothing definite yet.

At what depth is the aeroplane found by the National Grid ROV?

Is this really a Stirling.
From the images I have seen the identification seems to be entirely based on what is thought to be a tailwheel fork which appears to me to be manufactured as a single hoop, probably tubular, while the images of actual Stirling tail wheel forks, shown on this link http://sas.raf38group.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2562 clearly indicate the leg being an assembly of a strut, two side tubes and an aluminium bolted fitting that joins it all together, or am I missing something!

Richard

As I said exception by specific Licence which specifies limits – without Licence the following applies to duty holders.

“There are two levels of protection offered by this Act, designation as a protected place or as a controlled site.

Protected places

The designation of protected places includes the remains of any aircraft which crashed while in military service or any vessel which sank or stranded in military service after 4 August 1914.

Although crashed military aircraft receive automatic status as a protected place, vessels need to be specifically designated by name. The location of the wreck does not need to be known for it to be designated as a protected place.

You are allowed to dive on an aircraft or vessel designated as a protected place, on a ‘look but do not touch’ basis only, however it is an offence to:

conduct unlicensed diving or salvage operations
tamper with, damage, remove or unearth any remains
enter any hatch or other opening

Controlled sites

Controlled sites are specifically designated areas which cover the remains of a military aircraft or a vessel sunk or stranded in military service within the last 200 years.

Within a controlled site, diving operations are prohibited unless you are authorised by a specific licence. It is also an offence to:

conduct diving, salvage or excavation operations for the purposes of investigating or recording the remains
tamper with, damage, move or unearth any remains
enter any hatch or opening

You can obtain further information on this Act and its administration by contacting the MOD.”

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/wreck-and-salvage-law

Ross

Curious, how did they get permission to raise the bell off the HMS Hood wreck ?, a very large and famous war grave

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/images/wa1001_snorkel%20parka_763.jpg
Is that not something of later origin that has landed on the wrecksite?

Would UK policy prohibit a bona fide museum from removing objects from the wreck that would have little likelihood of disturbing human remains…such ad the aforementioned glider towing yoke?

Yes – If museum was UK owned/based or UK national tasked with work. Exception is Licence Issue – but not given for explorative action to identify wreck. Any other nationality would need agreement of UK Gov – which would deffer to UK policy from Protection of Military Remains Act and International Maritime Law.

Also, what is the likelihood of the wreck still harboring human remains?

Policy is to assume that all wrecks contain human remains unless identity is confirmed beyond all reason and all crew (plus possible stowaways/additional crew) accounted for.

Before the debate starts of “all remains will have decayed” look at the fabric of the snorkel parka on the B-24 wreck in the Channel on this link.

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/marine/alsf/wrecks_seabed/round2rov/wa1001/b-24_wa1001_art
Edit – Put WA 1001 into the search box then go to the artefact tab

The “war grave” status doesn’t seem to be universal…witness the Swedish C-47 on display that was shot down by Russian fighters in the Cold War.
Also, have any Spitfires been resurrected (via “data plate” rebuilds) from fatal wartime crashes?

See my comments about “War Grave” not having any status in Law and beware of including UK recoveries taken place before the Act.

So far I see the original exploration company carring out explorative/identification and reporting in accordance with their duty to law and with respect. A far cry from the ill informed opinion of some who have not take the time to research what the duty to law for the site is afforded.

Ross

Several wreck sites have been placed out of bounds as there is the possibility of human remains still being present.

Allow me to ask a (probably) naive question…
Would UK policy prohibit a bona fide museum from removing objects from the wreck that would have little likelihood of disturbing human remains…such ad the aforementioned glider towing yoke?

Also, what is the likelihood of the wreck still harboring human remains?

The “war grave” status doesn’t seem to be universal…witness the Swedish C-47 on display that was shot down by Russian fighters in the Cold War.
Also, have any Spitfires been resurrected (via “data plate” rebuilds) from fatal wartime crashes?

Is that confirmed? Because it will get moved if they are drilling.

The project is to lay a subsea power cable. Deviations will be allowable to cover such circumstances. That is one of the points of having an ROV survey.
If it were a drilling operation, movement of several tens of metres from the target is not unknown (we have done just that recently at another North Sea location … There was a bloody Whitley sat right in the way :)).

Please forgive my ignorance regarding War Graves, if the aircraft is physically in the way of the company in question, can they actually ‘move’ it? Or continue with this Stirling in their way and not give it a second thought? (Basically speaking)

Richy.

No – because the phrase “War Grave” has no meaning in UK or International Law – just common usage.

It is a place covered by UK law for UK nationals regardless of location and by that Act considered to have human remains unless Licence Issued.

Under International and local law it is owned by UK and no rights have been relinquished so it is a place subject to UK interest.

Why do you feel it should need to go RAF Museum regardless of status?

Ross

Is that confirmed? Because it will get moved if they are drilling.

And rightly so

It’s going nowhere – War Grave

no comment from the RAF museum yet? Thats where it needs to go, much as East Kirkby would be nice.